Office Supply vs CompuHelp - Case Study Example

Fundamentals of Law Assignment Name Institution Case: Office Supply (John) Vs. CompuHelp Issues The Office Supply and CompuHelp had formed an enforceable contract. John the owners of Office supply went seeking for services from CompuHelp through Sophie the salesperson. John was promised to get the services he was looking for from CompuHelp. The standard contract from CompuHelp, whose term was one year and the customer, was required to pay for the services of the technicians on hourly basis. The contract indicated that the hourly rate was $000.00, which to John meant there was some special promotion and the technician service was free. John signed against the contract and re-emailed it back to Sophie without the bother to confirm the figure because he did not expect the contract to contain some mistakes. John thought that he would benefit from the promotion and used all his money to purchase the business computers, just to realise some computer problem and asked for technician help from CompuHelp who spent two hours to repair. After a week, John received a different contract with the invoice of $200.00 and indicated that the hourly rate being $100.00, but not $000.00, as it was in the contract form. The contract require John to pay the invoice and sign the new contract, but John emailed back to Sophie refusing to pay or sign the contract because it was different from the agreement made through the previous contract. Rule The law of contract formation highlights that a contract is formed once an email acceptance is read or the moment the email acceptance is sent. According to the ruling court, there was breach of contract by CompuHelp, which was formed with Office Supply (McKendrick, 2014). A contract is formed when there is the agreement, consideration of the terms, intention. and the capacity formalities of the two parties. It is clear that John was intending to be in a contract with CompuHelp by seeking for its services. In addition, CompuHelp was intending to offer services since Sophie said that the services would be available. After reading the contract sent to John, he made considerations and made agreement, by signing it and sending it back over the email the same means he had received the contract being enclosed (Cohen, 2009). According to the law of contract formation, this is a clear indicator that there was a significant contract formed between the two companies. The law considers that there was an enforceable contract formed by Office Supply and CompuHelp because Sophie sent the second contract correcting the mistake. According to the contract law, CompuHelp has some defences to the Office Supply’s breach of contract claim. This is because Sophie the salesperson at CompuHelp had made a mistake in the initial contract emailed to John (Thel, & Siegelman, 2010). The new contract showed that the mistake was done since Sophie indicated that hourly rate was $100.00 not $000.00. The contract formation law requires prove of contract breach. John should offer the entire email conversation with Sophie. John was fraudulently induced by the charges indicated in the initial contract where he thought CompuHelp was offering technician services for free and entered into the contract. Ultimately, the proof of breach of contract by CompuHelp enhances possible remedies to Office supply. The remedies according to contract law are compensatory damage because John used all the money he had to buy computers without expecting to incur cost in repair of the computer since the contract indicated there was special offer for the technician services (Porat, 2009). In addition, there should be the remedy of punitive damage requiring the punishment of the wrong doer who led to breaching of the contract. Sophie the salesperson from CompuHelp should be punished by being made to pay the charges supposed to be charged John for the technician services. The fraudulent behaviour of Sophie led to John incurring the loss after spending all his money to purchase the company’s computers, which later developed the problem requiring the technician’s services. Analysis/Application The civil code and standard rules of contract formation apply where the plaintiff (John) is supposed to provide prove of the CompuHelp having breached the contract formed with the Office Supply. The UK laws of requirements of every contract, that is, the offer, acceptance, consideration, intention, and the capacity of the parties in the contract applies in the case where CompuHelp and John met all the requirements. The essential terms of a contract are met in the case since communication was held appropriately (Wilkinson‐Ryan, & Baron, 2009). John should provide the provocation received through the new contract sent by Sophie correcting the technician charges and the obligation of paying for the charges, as this would deter repetition of the same act by a reasonable person. The rules related to the breach of contract and the legal provisions in a contract formation enhance the judgement of the case without discrimination of either parties. The liability rules for breach of contract also apply because the plaintiff experienced some losses because of CompuHelp’s breach of the contract formed in good faith (Nystén-Haarala, Lee, & Lehto, 2010). The contract was legally binding the two parties, John, and CompuHelp’s salesperson Sophie because it was legally formed. Te nation’s contract low generally applies in this case and remedies, as well as defences associated with such breach of contract. Conclusion There is an enforceable contract formation between Office Supply and CompuHelp through Sophie the salesperson at CompuHelp and John the owner of Office Supply. This is proved by the email conversation between John and Sophie, which offers all the terms of contract formation (Jajodia, 2012). However, CompuHelp has breached the contract formed with Office Supply by not offering the services with the consideration of the information as it is in the contract clause about the hourly rate of the technician services. Despite the Office Supply and CompuHelp forming an enforceable contract and John the owner of Office Supply having all the trust to CompuHelp, John was required to pay for the technician services after repairing his computers and yet the initial contract indicated that the company was offering free services (Chen-Wishart, 2012). According to the civil law and contract formation requirements, Office Supply is likely to win its lawsuit. John should offer the proof of the contract formation and breaching of the contract in the court of law. However, CompuHelp has some defences to Office Supply’s breach of contract claim, that is, the contract mistake. Sophie had made some mistake when sending the contract email to John, thus misleading John about the payment for the services offered by CompuHelp. If the Office Supply proves a breach of contract, the possible remedies available to Office Supply are the compensatory damages where the Office Supply should be compensated for the loss it incurred by being mislead by the mistake made by CompuHelp in the initial contract (Eisenberg, 2009). The court can reduce the amount to be paid against the services received by John from the CompuHelp’s technician. Another remedy is punitive damage where the court can require Sophie who is the wrong doer on the side of CompuHelp to pay for the charges against Office Supply as a way of punishing her because of acting fraudulently. This would deter other people from acting in the similar manner to clients. If the initial contract was indicating the correct charges for the technician services, may be John could have made further considerations before signing the contract and before agreeing to seek for the technician’s services (Shiffrin, 2008). Probably, john would not have spent all the funds he had to purchase the computers, but would have saved some for the repair costs. References Chen-Wishart, M. (2012). Contract law. Oxford University Press. Cohen, G. M. (2009). The Fault that Lies Within Our Contract Law. Michigan Law Review, 107. Eisenberg, M. A. (2009). The Role of Fault in Contract Law: Unconscionability, Unexpected Circumstances, Interpretation, Mistake, and Nonperformance. Michigan Law Review, 1413-1430. Jajodia, G. (2012). Remedies for Breach of Contract. Available at SSRN 2042652. McKendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press. Nystén-Haarala, S., Lee, N., & Lehto, J. (2010). Flexibility in contract terms and contracting processes. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(3), 462-478. Porat, A. (2009). A Comparative Fault Defense in Contract Law. Michigan Law Review, 107, 1397. Shiffrin, S. (2008). Could breach of contract be immoral. Mich. L. Rev., 107, 1551. Thel, S., & Siegelman, P. (2010). You Do Have to Keep Your Promises: A Disgorgement Theory of Contract Remedies. Wm. & Mary L. Rev., 52, 1181. Wilkinson‐Ryan, T., & Baron, J. (2009). Moral judgment and moral heuristics in breach of contract. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6(2), 405-423. Read More